It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.

10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.

I'm not talking upgrade versions. If we were talking upgrade copies, that makes the Windows OSes cheaper as well, by about half. I specifically listed full retail prices b/c that was the best way to keep it clear. It's the price the consumer sees on the shelf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuku

Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).

In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.

That's just good customer service really. Plus it makes sense that some of the problems are likely due to an older OS version. I know if I was helping someone w/their Vista install and they didn't have SP1 or SP2 installed, the first thing I would do is go grab them.

I was clear in my original post that I wasn't trying to judge value, I was just trying to list things as the standard non-technical, non-computer obsessed individual will see things if they look for a basic comparison.

Me, I've been keeping up w/computers since I was 12 (32 now). My dad had an Apple IIe, my stepdad eventually had a 286/16 w/4MB ram that I used to play SO many games back in the day I like and respect Apple even if I don't own their systems. I am not one of the people I am posting about. I've been known to spend an hour or 2 watching Apple keynotes b/c it's fun and I'm a geek Besides, at an Apple keynote I don't have to watch Steve Ballmer froth at the mouth and throw chairs heh.

Not to quibble, but I would say that Vista was NOT fixed with SP2. And even if it was, what a painful fix! I have an HP 4400 series workstation running vista ultimate. It took me literally 3 days just to get the machine stable enough to work with. Just installing service pack one, then service pack two (because SP2 requires SP1 first) took the better part of a work day. Why should installing a service pack take 2 or 3 HOURS? It is absurd.

Because there is something horribly wrong with your box..? \

SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.

Nyyeaaaaah, 'cause manufacturers don't include the price of Windows in the package at all right? The cost doesn't magically go away just because they buy a premade config.

Still, I'm pretty sure it's a lot lower. For the A-list computer makers, I've never seen estimates go much higher than $40 a unit for "Home", a little higher for better versions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jminnihan

Wrong. Actually many types of customers have to pay $300 for Vista, including those who build their own custom PC's, those who run Windows in VMs, etc. But what about OEM copies? OEM copy deals on Vista are very few and far between at the moment. When Windows 7 appears, the OEM copy deals will become more prevalent and more discounted. Even OEM copy deals on Windows XP are not very good, because most of these copies go to those who are unhappy with Windows Vista, and did not get a copy from the OEM, or must load Windows XP on a VM.

G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:

I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.

I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.

Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.

Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.

I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.

Most people probably don't b/c the way Windows tends to jack requirements up pretty significantly w/each new OS, by the time you are ready for a new system you are probably ready for a new OS too. Plus they know their service packs will be free too. A lot of the time the non-technical only hear about the upgrade prices when a snarky MS fan reminds them of it But it is out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.

Very rarely is anything on Windows side going to be restricted by which SP you are using. XP is still capable of running most modern software, barring things MS intentionally made "Vista only" like DirectX10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.

The family packs are a great thing and make a lot of sense. I didn't include them b/c I couldn't find any information on when they had started doing the family packs. Interesting enough, finding the pricing info on the various OS X releases was far easier than finding the launch prices for XP and Vista heh.

Microsoft was playing with the idea of limiting the base version of Windows 7 to run 3 applications simultaneously because the hardware running that version likely couldn't do more than that.

Wrong. The Starter Edition was planned to be limited because of a low license price for netbooks to compete with free Linux. You still can upgrade to any higher version. Every version of 7, even Ultimate, runs on a netbook with 1 GB RAM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roehlstation

Because this is an an Apple-Centric Website (refer to name of the website), Just because there isn't criticism in every single article posted on this site doesn't mean Apple Users have no complaints.

But there should be criticism in every single article. That should be the reason for such a website. Am I wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roehlstation

When did Vista Get out of the Box Blu-Ray Support? Oh yeah, they don't have it, Vista can now finally burn a DVD from Windows Explorer (something the Mac OS did from version 10.0. Heck, even 9.2.2 had that)

Vista SP2 can burn Blu-Ray within Explorer. So OK as long as you have to install SP2 it is not exactly out-of-the box but newer systems will come with SP2 installed.

well here is one huge significance you have missed. although you do have to connect some dots:

- in January Apple introduces iWork 09 (for $20 per seat in family pack), which is now a complete office suite that could completely replace (the ridiculously overpriced @ $135 - the "Microsoft tax") MS Office for Mac users, except that it lacks Exchange/Entourage functions.

- now in September Apple will add that Exchange support to Snow Leopard, which will enable Mail and iCal to completely replace Entourage for Mac users.

that makes Snow Leopard the Mac Office 2008-"killer." and since MS makes several hundred million dollars per year selling Office to Mac owners, that is "significant." but even more significant is that it really makes life without any Microsoft product at all very possible for most people. and that is a threat of the gravest possible significance to MS long-term. a complete consumer escape route from their practical everyday multi-platform desktop software-required-by-services hegemony.

SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.

One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.

Like one problem it wiped the mouse driver, and the mouse just stopped working(it's your standard HID mouse that ironically came with the computer). It was one of the most painful things to fix, because it would lock up the moment I plugged in the mouse, and I had to trouble shoot it with a keyboard alone, for a stupid driver issue.

The other thing that SP slow down on is if you have extra's installed (which is downloaded), it took forever if it happened to messed them up. Language packs are the worse offense.

But I could say there's horribly wrong with a lot of people's Vista boxes because it's running vista

Everything from printers, to shares, to a freaking mouse(!). One of them I just gave up because to transfer data of it to the the external drive (which the USB driver won't work on vista for some reason), was worth more effort in money then the machine.

I'm more prejudice to it, because in a corporate environment, vista problems naturally amplify the flaws, and the easiest way to fix it, is to ban it.

See problem solved, anyone who brings in a vista laptop can connect to the guest wifi firewalled, you work on your crappy work station and live with it. IT policy.

One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.

Which download manager? The Service Pack comes via Windows Update. If you can't see the SP there, don't install it because some drivers may not be compatible yet with the SP! Wait until updated drivers are shown and don't plug in new hardware while the SP installs.

I had SP2 beta on one machine with Ultimate Extras and one language pack installed, I uninstalled the beta SP and installed the final version on a desktop and a tablet without a single problem. Never had problems with Vista.

Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.

In addition, since you have included an OS x version that won't be coming out until September, it would only be fair that you should include Windows 7, as well.

If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh

Apple has a list price for everything, and family pack prices for consumer programs. but since it makes absolutely zero effort to prevent unlimited installs from a single disk, it essentially gives it away for almost nothing. that's the real "street price." on purpose of course. to sell more hardware of course.

now i know no one visiting AI would ever do that! but i gotta say, i think it actually happens a lot ...

on the other hand, if you try to sell mac clone hardware like Pystar, they'll sue your butt!

If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh

In all fairness then, I would suggest that you at least delete the $129 for the free Puma and the $29 upgrade for Snow Leopard.

In addition, if you are going to use a discount outlets prices for Microsoft's OS's, then at least do the same for Apple's OS X's. e.g., OS X from MacMall is $103.99.

Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.

To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.

So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.

Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.

And to add to your point, WIndows Vista (aka Longhorn) Was suppose to come out in 2003. And, if you look back, Windows came out more frequent with updates before XP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel

Thanks. Pretty sure I used to have an AI account back around 2002 but I couldn't remember what it was Also thanks for the 10 to 10.1 info.

I'm not being deceptive at all. I'm explaining it from a non-technical Windows users point of view. Windows XP to XP SP1 is a service pack. It modifies XP. To their view OS X 10.5 to 10.6 is a service pack, modifying OS X. OS X becoming OS XI would be an OS release to that way of thinking. Microsoft hasn't done the X.XX.XX model of naming since the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days. Also, it isn't unknown for Microsoft to release new tech (or support for a new tech) outside of an OS release or a service pack. Generally it is also a free download.

I am well aware of the level of technical changes in the various OS X upgrades over the year. I'm speaking for the general public's viewpoint. They will just see Apple charging for an upgrade to their operating system when it is still the "same OS" (OS X). Vista getting a service pack for free makes sense to them and Windows 7 having a full OS price also makes sense. It's part of the conditioning Microsoft has used over the years.

First off, welcome. Second off, they would be wrong. OS X is like Windows NT. Windows NT, being the core of the OS, hasn't received a major re-write in a very long time. It has been changed, features added onto it, but it's still basically the same technology. However, the same is true with OS X (or was Leopard a major re-write?), but the difference is -- OS X came in 2001, NT came in 1993. It is in a desperate need for a re-write, really is.

But, to be fair, look how much Apple updates each "OS X service pack": Link

And, btw, a Service Pack does not change or add features, it usually deals with stability or security breaches in the OS. OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) will add some features, under the hood, while increasing speed -- which is a feature. Also, Microsoft has stated that they plan on releasing more Windows, faster, instead of waiting 6 years to make a new update. To prove the point, Windows 7 is coming out (which, btw, is called Windows 6.1 in the MS windows team) this year, or early next year. So, yea. Plus you didn't add XP Media Edition, which added features (I am sure you could buy it at the retail -- right?).

To add to the OS upgrade price comparison, you should add that Mac users haven't needed to purchase additional hardware to be able to upgrade and get a similar performance after upgrading. My main computer is a PowerBook Pismo I purchased in 2000 with Mac OS 9. I've since upgraded all the way to 10.4 without any hardware purchases, saving many dollars

To add to the OS upgrade price comparison, you should add that Mac users haven't needed to purchase additional hardware to be able to upgrade and get a similar performance after upgrading. My main computer is a PowerBook Pismo I purchased in 2000 with Mac OS 9. I've since upgraded all the way to 10.4 without any hardware purchases, saving many dollars

Thats true, until Snow Leopard, and I have a feeling older Intel macs are going to be phased out at some point, as well. And another thing to add -- I know some people consider this to be true, because I have seen the argument "Apple charges for Service packz!?!" but, they are wrong to think that Leopard is a service pack of Tiger. I get added functionality, added features, (supposedly) more speed (I found this not to be true from Tiger to Leopard), a new design, and an overall better experience. And, um, what features did SP 1 get you Vista owners? Hmmm?

You see, it's wrong to think that way, and anyone considering getting a Mac, who finds this argument, will at some point (if they do their research) find the truth.

well folks can debate nomenclature all day but never get to one true answer. it depends how you look at it.

Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1. Microsoft can brand it any way it wants, but that's what it actually is. Vista was 6.0, and it was a true generation beyond XP 5.x, no question. So Vista and Windows 7 are both NT 6.x. but you are still going to have to pay a lot for the upgrade from one to the next. the market justification for that is the end user experience will be noticeably improved.

Snow Leopard 10.6 is not as big a jump from Leopard OS 10.5 for Mac OS X as XP to Vista was for NT from end user perspectives. but it is a very consequential jump nonetheless technically because it terminates PPC support and initiates important new processor technologies for the future. those key internal OS changes alone logically warrant the next gen numbering. even if the Finder refinements don't and Quicktime could have been updated separately as a stand alone product. but in market terms it only justifies a modest upgrade price, and that is all Apple is asking. so for once few are whining.

bottom line, MS is making many PC users pay twice to get NT 6.x right once. that's a real rip. a Microsoft tax!. let the PC whining commence!

OK, you bought an home use XP PC in 2006, then you upgraded to Vista in 2007 and now will upgrade again to Win 7 in 2009. so ...

Vista Home Premium upgrade cost - 160
Wind 7 Home Premium upgrade advance purchase special - 50
Total spent on upgrades to get an NT 6.x that works right - 210

vs. a Mac home user who bought in intel Mac in 2007, then upgraded to Leopard in 2007 and will now upgrade again to Snow Leopard in 2009 ...

Leopard upgrade cost - 130
Snow Leopard upgrade cost - 30

Total spent on OS X upgrades - 160

so the Microsoft Tax: 210-160 = $50. and Win 7 Home Premium is simply not the equal of Snow Leopard in capabilities (like lacking Exchange support - hah!). so at least add the price for the stand-alone MS Office Outlook 2007 - another 110 - total MS tax now is $160!!

And it gets much worse for businesses or high end users. if you run the same scenario, and using the family pack prices for Mac while there is no multi user discount for Windows, the totals come out (at least) 410 vs. 150 - a $260 MS tax per computer!

but few businesses will ever follow that scenario. they'll just buy new PC's instead, most having already skipped Vista anyway. that was smart.

but any poor consumer who upgraded to Vista and can't afford a new PC now is getting royally screwed by MS. think they will ever catch on?

And it gets much worse for businesses or high end users. if you run the same scenario, and using the family pack prices for Mac while there is no multi user discount for Windows, the totals come out (at least) 410 vs. 150 - a $260 MS tax per computer!

but few businesses will ever follow that scenario. they'll just buy new PC's instead, most having already skipped Vista anyway. that was smart.

Actually business cheat both PC and Mac.

On PCs they just reimage it with the corp version of windows (usually pay a lot less then they should have. Who count's? Not MS)

On macs, it's free, because one disc is just imaged and repeated used (Who care's not apple).

Business don't change because MS is a bastard about support, and the moment you jump vista, you have to do everything from MS suite, down the line in upgrades.

And it still doesn't fix the bugs. Why bother changing, when a work state is emails and office? Heck business uses actually want to downgrade not only vista, but Office 2007 to 2003. Stupid of MS to change the interface. Business users are the most paranoid when it comes to workflow.

So you have users that refuse both vista and office, what's left for reason to upgrade?.

I didn't go through that mess, fortunately. When I purchased Vista, it was Vista SP1 on the disc and it installed fine and I never experienced any problems. I have been using Vista for 14 months now and have never and I mean NEVER had it freeze (requiring CTRL+ALT+DEL) and have never seen a BSOD. And all of this on a PC I built. I am not going to say its the best, I have been running Win 7RC and it is so much more responsive. I just feel that Vista is sometimes given an unfair bad rap..

On the flip side, your comments don't answer the questions that I presented the author. I actually just read another thorough article comparing the 2 OS and it was actually unbiased and broke down feature for feature. I found that to be a nice read. Apple was ahead in several categories and Win 7 was ahead in several and they were about even in several. I actually learned something from it. Oh, and they clearly stated that Win 7 pricing wasn't out yet and both OS have not been released.

Not to quibble, but I would say that Vista was NOT fixed with SP2. And even if it was, what a painful fix! I have an HP 4400 series workstation running vista ultimate. It took me literally 3 days just to get the machine stable enough to work with. Just installing service pack one, then service pack two (because SP2 requires SP1 first) took the better part of a work day. Why should installing a service pack take 2 or 3 HOURS? It is absurd.

I went through so much nonsense getting the box where I needed it to be just to be functional...

Look, I use Macs and PC's. I develop for both. I can only speak from my own experience, but that experience is considerable, and this is what I have to say: it completely mystifies me how MS can sell this crap. Honestly, some of this stuff is just pure unadulterated excrement. I spend more time fighting my PC to get it to work than I do actually working, sometimes, and that is just ridiculous that it should be that way. It should NOT be so. My workstations and development tools are supposed to help me be productive, not vex me into the grave early. Anyone who thinks this state of affairs is acceptable or good is just blinded by some misplaced allegiance.

I didn't go through that mess, fortunately. When I purchased Vista, it was Vista SP1 on the disc and it installed fine and I never experienced any problems. I have been using Vista for 14 months now and have never and I mean NEVER had it freeze (requiring CTRL+ALT+DEL) and have never seen a BSOD. And all of this on a PC I built. I am not going to say its the best, I have been running Win 7RC and it is so much more responsive. I just feel that Vista is sometimes given an unfair bad rap..

On the flip side, your comments don't answer the questions that I presented the author. I actually just read another thorough article comparing the 2 OS and it was actually unbiased and broke down feature for feature. I found that to be a nice read. Apple was ahead in several categories and Win 7 was ahead in several and they were about even in several. I actually learned something from it. Oh, and they clearly stated that Win 7 pricing wasn't out yet and both OS have not been released.

First off, my biggest gripe with Vista is just how slow it is. I haven't used Windows 7 yet, but I can tell you that Snow Leopard will be faster then Vista -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it's faster the Windows 7, but we shall see by the end of this year.

Second, I read that review, or preview, and I have to agree with most of it: although I think it's kinda weird them saying that Windows 7 has awesome backgrounds, when OS X can just use those -- but I don't really care, because most of the time I find my own backgrounds. So...yea. Snow Leopard, if it's faster and more responsive then OS X Tiger, then it will more then likely be my favorite OS.

Where is the "Microsoft Exchange killer?" No, I do not mean "Outlook killer." I want an Exchange killer. Does Apple understand how many thousands of corporate and government users have their email held hostage on the Exchange server? Can Apple invent a migration plan to get corporate users off Exchange.

Is Apple afraid to enter the mail server area, as Microsoft could easily kill Apple corporate and higher education sales by halting all future releases of MS Office for the Mac?

I am sure there are other significant shortcomings of Macs in the office that Apple should address. Please feel free to add to this wish list......

Where is the "Microsoft Exchange killer?" No, I do not mean "Outlook killer." I want an Exchange killer. Does Apple understand how many thousands of corporate and government users have their email held hostage on the Exchange server? Can Apple invent a migration plan to get corporate users off Exchange.

Is Apple afraid to enter the mail server area, as Microsoft could easily kill Apple corporate and higher education sales by halting all future releases of MS Office for the Mac?

I am sure there are other significant shortcomings of Macs in the office that Apple should address. Please feel free to add to this wish list......

Rather than kill Exchange they chose to license it directly into the OS. Their iWork apps are already compatible w/Office programs I believe, so you won't need Office on the Mac as long as you pick up iWork. That appears to be the gameplan anyway. Someone in another thread said w/the Exchange change IT departments could easily just give people a Mac Mini w/iWork installed and have all the basics covered.

I sorely doubt your system specs are in-line with his system. That alone will change stability and time to fix whatever happens after updating.

The fact that you have to say that is not comforting. Especially when MS was more or less sued for their "vista ready" program.

The minimum specs are way too low. Vista is indeed bloated in certain angle. Usually not a problem except the extreme backlash they got.

I can check off my logs for several cases where "It worked just fine in XP, but when I upgraded to vista it was soooo slow". And there was no real solutions, because it was just the requirements.

Apple has largely avoided this through tight coding and honest cut offs. It fumes a lot of people, but in the end it makes the backlash short. Even the whole quartz hack on rage pro, died a fast controversy.

Vista is really a Windows Me Type system. It was never meant for business and corporate. It was too fault, too loose, and too annoying for power users.

Anyone who says "I never had a problem with Vista" has not plug it to anything but their kvm and a bundled printer.

Once you start plugging things into it, SP1 SP2, it still is a hair pulling experience. It has never been the stuff you expect not to work to mess you up, it's the stuff that has worked for ages, suddenly stop working.

Basically Netbooks are low low bargin-bin price, and with it the market agenda that "You're not running a computer, you're running a web browser terminal".

In came an influx of free linux-esque OSs, because, compatibility is suddenly not important. You don't want it to run MS office, exchange, games, or any other of MS's fortes. Thus it was marketed as "Windows free" and consumers lured by the price and size, accepted it.

And with that acceptance, grew MS alternatives. Gmail, web based desktop publishing, etc (Essensically, baiting people to stop using MS office and other windows monopoly stuff)

And this lead to a terrible situation for MS. People wanted Windows free machines, because it was percieved as cheaper and willing to use alternatives.

(just like iphone killing windows mobile licenses)

This lead to MS cutting license prices (usually XP) to get them on netbooks, essentially destroying their business models. (MS getting rapped at the own game, funny).

This isn't usually a problem, software is essentially free if no one buys it. But it is, if competitors also cut off future products like Vista (which won't go on netbooks, because it needs to make money).

And if Apple decides to go playing a price war with windows 7. MS is basically in a situation of fighting it's own tactics, your revenue stream is being cut from behind, and your business model above has suddenly run into roadblocks.

It's like loosing your job and paying the mortgage. Even if you got lots of cash in the bank, things can eventually dry up, unless you get out of the situation.

If people choose to use only browser-based applications, then why would they care about the operating system? I like the "why bother with windows" argument made above, but how do you justify paying an additional $800 for a comparable Mac?

Rather than kill Exchange they chose to license it directly into the OS. Their iWork apps are already compatible w/Office programs I believe, so you won't need Office on the Mac as long as you pick up iWork. That appears to be the gameplan anyway. Someone in another thread said w/the Exchange change IT departments could easily just give people a Mac Mini w/iWork installed and have all the basics covered.

Until recently, we had one unix mail server, with Eudora and Thunderbird as email clients. Exchange is being forced on the entire organization - just because a couple of executives love the Exchange calendar. I wince every time I have to tell my users to use Entourage when they get a new machine. Yes - it is more convenient to deploy a Mac, just as long as they use Entourage and nothing else. Bye bye Apple Mail! So much for choice.......

I understand the reasons why Apple keeps iWork and to keep it as compatible with M$ products as possible. Someday, M$ could stop offering Office for Mac.....
If M$ wants to bash Apple about price, then I would love to see Apple argue about the high costs of running Exchange. Apple really needs to jump into the mail server market. This would cut M$ at its knees.

Of course the interesting thing is that if people decide to buy iWork and skip Office, MS may lose some money, but they could decide to stop producing Office for Mac. What I'm curious of is how much money would MS save by not having to develop Office for both platforms? Might be close enough that they would just decide to skip it as a cost cutting measure in this economy

Of course the interesting thing is that if people decide to buy iWork and skip Office, MS may lose some money, but they could decide to stop producing Office for Mac. What I'm curious of is how much money would MS save by not having to develop Office for both platforms? Might be close enough that they would just decide to skip it as a cost cutting measure in this economy

Ive read some reports that show that MS makes a very hefty profit from Office for Mac sales, so they would be saving some development cost but losing a lot of profit. This was a couple years ago before iWork was any sort of competitor and probably while MS was required to make Office for Mac due to an agreement. Things may have changed.

SL will allow you to view any(?) Office doc without having iWork or Office installed. Frankly, I have never needed either program suite in years. As a consumer, I use TextEdit which has enough rich text options to suit any needs I have at this point.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

If people choose to use only browser-based applications, then why would they care about the operating system? I like the "why bother with windows" argument made above, but how do you justify paying an additional $800 for a comparable Mac?

Because people that are lured by netbooks are not Apple's target audience.

Apple doesn't care, because people who buy apple will never even want to consider using browser based apps, or require more.

For that they can use iphone

Apple doesn't want to go into that dog fight, which it stay smart by profiting off HW rather then SW.

MS has no choice. Most of the sales have always come from low end machines. High end machines tend to be corporate, that just resist everything, and MS can only depend on them in cycles, not all year.

Ive read some reports that show that MS makes a very hefty profit from Office for Mac sales, so they would be saving some development cost but losing a lot of profit. This was a couple years ago before iWork was any sort of competitor and probably while MS was required to make Office for Mac due to an agreement. Things may have changed.

SL will allow you to view any(?) Office doc without having iWork or Office installed. Frankly, I have never needed either program suite in years. As a consumer, I use TextEdit which has enough rich text options to suit any needs I have at this point.

I could only hope that most users have boot camp or parallels in order to migrate away from Windows. Otherwise, why not just skip the Mac and buy a Windows machine? Since most applications will become browser-based, the client becomes increasingly irrelevant. Apple will have to try really hard to kick M$ out of the server room. There must be compelling reasons to use Xserve instead of Windows server 2000x......

I wish Apple would conquer colleges and universities--not just students, but faculty, staff, and the server rooms as well. Recall that Windows dominates the business and higher education market today, as all the windows 95/98 home users originally wanted to use the same operating systems and applications at work......

Where is the "Microsoft Exchange killer?" No, I do not mean "Outlook killer." I want an Exchange killer. Does Apple understand how many thousands of corporate and government users have their email held hostage on the Exchange server? Can Apple invent a migration plan to get corporate users off Exchange.

Is Apple afraid to enter the mail server area, as Microsoft could easily kill Apple corporate and higher education sales by halting all future releases of MS Office for the Mac?

I am sure there are other significant shortcomings of Macs in the office that Apple should address. Please feel free to add to this wish list......

WTF WTF WTF!

10.5+ is system insensitive.

You can plug 10 macs together with FW800 and Targetmount yourself imaging all you want.

you can use a a script copy, drag and drop(make sure you get the invis), or Migtrate to your hearts content.

And every single program, not MACaddress locked down, will work.

Mac is like the easiest to Ghost machine ever! It automatically blesses, and auto detects drivers, and boots up just fine.

Ghost has to be hacked to bits. It can't backup servers, it can't back up SATA drivers, SCSI drivers. And We've been given the still "beta" boot CD, to backup mount on disk

I could only hope that most users have boot camp or parallels in order to migrate away from Windows. Otherwise, why not just skip the Mac and buy a Windows machine? Since most applications will become browser-based, the client becomes increasingly irrelevant. Apple will have to try really hard to kick M$ out of the server room. There must be compelling reasons to use Xserve instead of Windows server 2000x......

I wish Apple would conquer colleges and universities--not just students, but faculty, staff, and the server rooms as well. Recall that Windows dominates the business and higher education market today, as all the windows 95/98 home users originally wanted to use the same operating systems and applications at work......

There is no war to be had. Windows and OS X work in completely different ways and in different markets. There is no way for Apple to make any serious inroads into Windows marketshare if they plan to keep their OS tied to their HW. For this reason, we need to look at Apples PC side from the HW perspective and compare them to the Dell, HP and others. From standpoint they do quite well and when you consider the average cost per machine and dollar sale you see that Apple win in both of those arenas. HP and Dell, who are number 1 and 2, wish they made as much gross and net as Apple makes. Earlier this year Apple reported that 1 out of every 3 dollars from PC sales in the US went to them. If you consider the +$1000 PCs you get an even higher number and a much higher percentage of sales. Im sure Apple wants more marketshare in both the HW and OS, but more money is better.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Of course when you have $30B in the bank, you could afford to try really cutting your margins down. The problem is that if Apple cut their margins closer to PC levels, you might well see machines much cheaper. But let's say Apple decides the experiment was not worth it. Imagine the headlines if "Apple jacks prices up $500 across the board!". That would be a PR nightmare.